Hillary Clinton on Bush, Clinton and WMD's

Post #152,250 by bluke 4/22/04 4:03:42 PM Reply	Hillary Clinton on Bush, Clinton and WMD's [link\|http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004988\|Best of the Web] "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared. But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." So the Clintonites and the Bushies both said Saddam Hussein has weapons. The difference is that the latter "really believed it." The former didn't really believe it, but they said it anyway. So it turns out it was CLINTON who LIED!!!!
Post #152,252 by mmoffitt 4/22/04 4:30:06 PM Reply	To some folks that chewed up grass, but to me it's... "It is very difficult to explain to an Iraqi that a man fighting from his own town with a Kalashnikov or RPG launcher is a 'coward' and a 'war criminal' (because, apparently, he should go out into the desert and wait to be annihilated from the sky) but that someone dropping 2000-pound bombs on residential areas or shooting at ambulances because they may have guns in them (even though they usually don't) is a hero and is following the laws of war." - Rahul Mahajan
Post #152,254 by Silverlock 4/22/04 4:39:46 PM Reply	Anyone who uses more than 2 exclamation points needs meds. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #152,456 by pwhysall 4/24/04 5:30:22 AM Reply	s/2/1/ Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #152,445 by Simon_Jester 4/24/04 12:37:30 AM Reply	So let's get this straight...was GW the only person.... who didn't know that Clinton was a liar?
Post #152,449 by boxley 4/24/04 12:58:20 AM Reply	he was the only one who believed cheney lived in montana attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #152,452 by rcareaga 4/24/04 1:15:31 AM Reply	Hillary Clinton - punctuation magic From "No More Mister Nice Blog": Clever. But you can arrive at a completely different reading of the quote by changing one period to a comma and one capital letter to a lowercase letter (remember, the sentence structure was the work not of Hillary, but of a CNN transcriber): "But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it, they really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." See the difference? Now the misjudgment Hillary's describing isn't that the Bushies "believed it," but rather that "they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision" -- committing the U.S. to war -- occurs like that." The quote is accordingly at the very least ambiguous, and Niceblog's reading makes more sense to me as spoken English. But the WSJ editorial page chose to see it (surprise!) through its whitewater-colored glasses. You've been played. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #152,477 by boxley 4/24/04 12:56:56 PM Reply	ya a comma and caps make a difference I didnt have sex with THAT woman, Miss Lewinski. ya knew it was coming dindja? thanx, bill attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #152,557 by mmoffitt 4/25/04 3:26:49 PM Reply	Actually, that is NOT what he said. He said he didn't have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky, which AFAIK, has not been refuted to date. bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,558 by Another Scott 4/25/04 3:55:19 PM Reply	He said lots. Oooh, another Clinton thread. Perhaps marlowe will come to visit again. ;-) [link\|http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/21/transcripts/lehrer/\|Transcript of Lehrer interview of Clinton]: LEHRER: The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, is investigating allegations that you suborned perjury by encouraging a 24-year-old woman, a former White House intern, to lie under oath in a civil deposition about her having had an affair with you. Mr. President, is that true? CLINTON: That is not true. That is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true. LEHRER: No improper relationship. Define what you mean by that. CLINTON: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship. LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman? CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate. Ah, good old Willie, mixing tenses, etc. Makes one a little nostalgic. Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,603 by mmoffitt 4/26/04 8:32:40 AM Reply	Nostalgic Indeed. For a President with a large enough command of the English language to know that tense and words affect meaning. bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,561 by bepatient 4/25/04 5:53:57 PM Reply	Nope. Hasn't been refuted to date. Blow jobs don't count I believe is the rational used in that statement. Giving head in the oval office and gettin a tad of it on yer dress is certainly not "sexual relations". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #152,567 by Another Scott 4/25/04 6:45:52 PM Reply	Nope. "Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." HTH! ;-j
Post #152,568 by bepatient 4/25/04 6:51:23 PM Reply	Well that >is< important, >is<n't it? I'm not sure I know what I meant, using >is< twice in a statement so short. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #152,570 by Another Scott 4/25/04 7:28:55 PM Reply	"After all, it isn't only not just the words, isn't it?" - Harry Nilsson. We're coming dangerously close to a stream of boxishness.... :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,576 by boxley 4/25/04 8:48:57 PM Reply	Well making her scream twice isnt sex either fucking her in the ass then wiping your dick on the drapes. thanx, bill attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #152,611 by mmoffitt 4/26/04 9:33:44 AM Reply	Nope. Depends on your ability to quote correctly. The statement both box and I were talking about was this: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." (Washington, D.C., January 26, 1998) [link\|http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html\|http://www.historych...e/speech_441.html] HTH. bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,612 by Another Scott 4/26/04 9:52:55 AM Reply	Yup. Box did get the quote wrong, and you are correct. I was just having some fun. Just to help kill this thread, my final contribution will be [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm\|this]: As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,614 by mmoffitt 4/26/04 10:53:17 AM Reply	Understood. I was disappointed in him, but more disappointed in my government for pursuing this idiocy. I wish it would die, but it doesn't look like its going to. The Repo Trashers (Coulter, Rush, Liddy, that idiot from Fox - don't remember his name, etc.) still bring it up over and over and over. I guess that keeps their little minds off of the collosal failure their boy has been. :-) bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,618 by boxley 4/26/04 11:15:24 AM Reply	they prefer gravitas not grabbyass shrub's a poorly advized extremely bad decision maker with gravitas bill was a poorly advized halfassed decision maker with grabbyass and grabbyass gets more ratings. thanx, bill attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!